Search results

If you asked a random person in the TTRPG community, who has no pre-existing exposure to the phrase, what it means for a GM to be a fan of the players, I think they would mention a lot of things that definition excludes. In the case of the AW definition, "watered down" may not be the best term...

Well, a link is literally just [[Name of note to link to]]. I'm pretty sure you can also right click, choose insert link, and select from your existing notes.

I do feel I should acknowledge that, whether I like it or not, "be a fan of the players" is a phrase that's here to stay, and I'm aware that no amount of gnashing of teeth on my part will change that.

There are numerous people in this thread, and elsewhere, who I've seen using "be a fan" in a way I feel is too watered to down to be particularly useful. The quote you provided earlier seems to meet this criteria for me, as well. And there are plenty of people in the hobby who firmly believe...

Well, if the GM isn't ruling fairly, I don't feel they need to be fan of the PCs to do so -- they just need to be fair. To me, being a fan comes with the implication that you're biased in their favour. Even if that's not the way it was originally intended, I've certainly seen people use it that...

Half the reason Blades in the Dark exists is because John Harper hates planning, of any sort. The reason the equipment system works the way it does is to support the fact the players aren't meant to be doing any planning; you just assume the characters did it and then jump into the action in...

If you're interested in giving it another look, I would recommend not attempting to begin with a fully-fledged campaign management system. I originally pickup Obsidian.md + sync simply because I moved to Linux and the sync tool offered me a replacement for google drive syncing. I then started...

I am providing what my players want and enjoy -- a world where they know they generally don't have any kind of plot immunity and where the world doesn't do them any favours just because they're PCs. Edit: I haven't read the "new simulation" manifesto and, as such, should certainly not be...

I don't know. Possibly no one in this thread. I'm not about to go scouring the internet looking for the names of people who have; I'm simply making sure my position is clear. As I mentioned, it seems to me that people suggesting that all GMs should be fans of the players are either pushing an...

In case there is any confusion, I don't object to it inasmuch as it's a perfectly valid way to run/play a game. I will reject any claim that it's the best/only/proper way to run things. Your character's collection of ancient photos isn't sacrosanct in my game, and I don't need the player's...

I think that being a neutral arbiter is not compatible with focusing on being "a fan of the PCs" if the latter is being interpreted as an actual, meaningful directive that you use a guiding principle when making decisions or rulings. I think it is perfectly compatible if you're using a watered...

If doing the things you listed means you're being a fan of the PCs, then the implication is that if you aren't a fan of the PCs you'll do the following: Refuse to include PCs background in the setting story (even if they make sense). Refuse to support associated NPCs, including animal...

Did you read the quoted text I was responding to?

No I'm simply saying that saying "I don't mean this disparagingly" doesn't mean you're not being disparaging or that you're immune to all claims to the contrary.

[Random Person's] views are clearly garbage. Now, just to be clear, I don't mean that disparagingly, because one person's trash is another's treasure, and this garbage being spewed by the [random person] is clearly of value to some people. Being garbage is a good thing, in this context, and...

The Battletech RPG is Mechwarrior. Edit: Which I see @Maxperson already mentioned.

Yes. I wasn't responding to an assertion that its part of the job, but a question as to what else the job could possibly be. In any case, as I said, it's not really the way I think of the role. YMMV.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here. It's certainly not that hard to just say, "You can only get things we agree are reasonable," and it is, in fact, necessary to do so. That does leave me a bit confused, though, as to why you won't accept this exact same kind of agreement...

Can everyone not see that there is a difference between direct and indirect consequences? And that arguing about exactly where the line between them lies is going to be pretty pointless?

How about "adjudicating the things the players are making (or trying to make) happen"? Or, "assessing the results of things that have happened." Also, "Describing the situation." In play, while sometimes I make things happen, I certainly wouldn't say that's my primary function -- not by a long way.